About these ads

MRAs cheer on the Seal Beach shooter: “Women are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened.”

The suspect in custody

On Wednesday afternoon, according to reports, a man named Scott Dekraai walked into a salon in Seal Beach California and opened fire, killing eight people, including his ex-wife Michelle Fournier, his evident target.  The two, who shared custody of their son, had been entangled in an acrimonious custody dispute. (Dekraai wanted to reduce his ex’s access.) Fournier had told friends she feared her ex would try to kill her.

It’s not, unfortunately, uncommon for angry or jealous exes to harass, stalk and in many cases actually kill the objects of their obsession.  Usually the killer is a man, and the victim a woman, but women kill too, and same sex couples are hardly immune from this kind of violence.

I’ve been following this story – it’s a heartbreaking one — though I hadn’t planned to write about it. There’s no indication, at least based on what we know so far, that Dekraai’s shootings were ideologically driven, that he was anything other than a deeply troubled man, bitterly angry that he had to share custody of his son with a woman he hated. There seemed to be no clear connections between this story and the misogynist ideologues I write about on this site.

But then they started making the connections themselves, offering apologias for Dekraai’s violence and twisting the facts of the case to fit their ideological agendas. TRIGGER WARNING: Many of the comments I quote below are some of the most vile and vicious I have ever found in more than a year of writing this blog.

On In Mala Fide, Ferdinand Bardamu didn’t let the facts get in the way of his perverse ideological spin on the case, titling his post on the subject “Anti-Male, Anti-Father Divorce Laws Drive Man to Commit Heinous Rage Shooting Against Ex-Wife” and blaming feminism for “poisoning the relationship between men and women” in America.

Bardamu’s argument, such as it is, is utterly at odds with the basic facts of the case. Dekraai and Fournier had shared custody of the boy they’d had together; Dekraai was not fighting to see his child — he was trying to further limit his ex’s access.

As a local Fox News affiliate noted:

Dekraai’s former attorney, Don Eisenberg, told CNS that the two had a “typical” divorce, which was finalized on Dec. 28, 2007.

“This was not a remarkable case. It was a stipulated judgment and the parties agreed on these details,” Eisenberg said.

Under the shared custody agreement, Dekraai had the boy each week from Thursday through the weekend, and the mother had him Monday through Wednesday, the attorney said.

“It was almost an exactly equal split,” Eisenberg said.

There’s not much beyond the headline to Bardamu’s post; the real action is in the comments — many of which openly advocate violence and explicitly endorse Dekraai’s murderous rampage.

One anonymous visitor left this chilling comment:

[E]nough of this type of offensive action might just start making women and their supporters* think twice, especially if they also become targets. (* Divorce attorneys, child services workers and counselors, family court judges, and other enabling cogs in the feminist legal system)

Self-immolating Thomas Ball may have made a point, but the fact remains that he didn’t strike a blow, even as he advocated it.

Someone calling himself Remorhaz expresses a similar sentiment:

The only way this or any offensive action will make a difference is if it starts affecting the judges and lawyers. King John did not sign the magna carta because he was a kindly just ruler, he did it with a sword on the back of his neck while watching a grinning man holding an axe who was busy trying on black hoods. In Mexico entire police forces quit because a few officers go missing. If that started happening then the law becomes meaningless as there is no one to enforce it. …

Essentially men need to tell feminism to shut the fuck up, give it a vigorous slap across the face thus reminding it who is the biological superior, then order it back into the kitchen/bedroom.

In a followup comment he railed against those who expressed disapproval of the shootings:

What options other than overt acts of physical violence are there for a man to deal with a shrew ex and corrupt family court system? To those who are horrified and surprised at this one question…. why? Isn’t the real question – “How come this isn’t a lot MORE common?”. And please avoid the “Well… nothing justifies killing blah blah blah” as we’ve all voted, supported, and tolerated governments who kill over parking tickets much less loss of children. And if keeping your children isn’t worthy of killing what is exactly?

Raymond, meanwhile, directed his opprobrium at Dekraai’s ex-wife:

Hopefully one of the dead carcess was his wife. The son will be better off without any parents than to have been raised by a single mother who would have gotten her vindictive way. And to Scott, when you mess with a real man’s child, blood will be spilt. Most men will just lay down and be resigned to the state-enforced kidnapping and extortion plot, but some are made of tougher stuff and for you to whine about this dead ex-wife or that is inconsequential and no loss to humanity.

Presumably he will be pleased to learn that she was one of those killed.

Frank saw the dead as “collateral damage” in a just war; his only complaint was that Dakraai hadn’t gone after public officials.

This man went to war. He caused much collateral damage and casualties have piled. And the people whose first reaction is to cry “those poor, innocent people” are people who will never change anything. Death is the way of the world. Violence or the implicit threat of it is what causes change. Go ahead, make it clear that you don’t have it in you to destroy life. The enemy will breath a little easier, because you certainly aren’t going to make any changes.

That said, he should have gone after judges and legislators. There’s no justice like a dead “justice”.

Tweell hoped the shootings would frighten women out of challenging their husbands or ex-husbands in court:

Gandi [sic] and MLK got what they were after via non-violent means, but they were dealing with people of conscience, people who would think about the issues they espoused and not just kill them. Non-violence only works when your opponent has moral character. …

I submit that women …  are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened. If it becomes obvious that claiming child abuse during divorce, withholding visitation and other such actions could result in their death, then they might think twice about such behavior.

Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, more moderate MRAs weighed in on the case. While no one explicitly defended the shooter’s actions, numerous posters said they understood the violence, and (completely ignoring the basic facts of the case) blamed it not on Dekraai but on a court system biased against men.

A poster calling himself TheRealPariah embraced Dekraai:

He is one of us. You cannot throw men struggling out simply because they do something you disagree with.

Bobsutan predicted (and came very close to endorsing) more violence,

violent outburst[s] like this will continue to happen so long as ‘kidnapping by court’ and ‘sold into slavery by court’ (via CS & alimony) keeps happening. … fix the family court system and these murders wouldn’t happen.

Moderator AnnArchist – we’ve met him before – agreed, arguing that

To prevent this in the future the solution is clear: Mandate 50/50 custody without any child support as the default

Another r/mr regular, carchamp1, took it a bit further:

I don’t condone what he did. No sane person would. But, I understand it. …  You steal someone’s kids with the help of our so-called “family” courts you’re a pig. You have it coming. Period.

I think it’s high time we put a spotlight on these kidnappers. They are NOT innocent people. They are the scum of the earth. I couldn’t care less about their “welfare”. I care about the millions of parents, mostly fathers, who’ve had their kids stolen from them AND their kids.

When I pointed out in the discussion there that Dekraai had hardly been denied access to his child,  AnnArchist changed the subject, suggesting that it was Fournier’s accusations against Dekraai in court that had pushed him over the edge. In fact, both had made numerous allegations about one another in court; Dekraai accused his ex-wife of phone harassment; she complained that he was abusive, mentally unstable and had threatened to kill her. Obviously she was right to have worried.

But according to AnnArchist, Fournier was wrong to bring up his instability in court. As he put it: “Poking the bear is dangerous.”

When I pressed him on this, he responded:

If you really think someone is nuts, you probably don’t want to be the one to call them out in open court because if they don’t go to prison they might kill you. Its tough to do with kids involved, but if she thought he was capable of something like this, using it in a custody dispute would be considered by many to be risky.

Astonished, I asked him if he was really saying what it looked like he was saying, that if you think your ex is dangerous, and literally insane, you shouldn’t challenge them in court when they try to get sole custody of your kid? His reply:

I didn’t know what to say to this bizarre argument, so I stopped responding.

I don’t know what to say to any of this. It is beyond appalling.

 

About these ads

Posted on October 14, 2011, in MRA, reddit, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 416 Comments.

  1. I’m guessing the beating in the McD’s is the result of him having been in prison for the past 10+ years, where one of the ways to avoid being even more brutalised is to respond to any aggression with overwhelming force.

    It’s not the rules of civilised society (though NWO seems to think it ought to be), but it’s a set of rules which are hard to dispose of. He probably felt really threatened (they had jumped the counter) and he did what he had been socialised to do.

    And, as if often the case, sheer speed/violence, will overcome numbers. They didn’t expect that level of response, and weren’t ready for it. He’d been trained to respond that quickly, as well as to be ready for it all the time.

  2. Broseidon, god of the brocean

    I hate to say it, but the Spearhead people are right about one thing: if the genders were reversed, everyone would be cheering for the female cashier who handed out the beatdown. But because a man did it, he is being portrayed as the bad guy. Did he go too far, absolutely. But some people already paint him as the aggressor, and the women who actually attacked him as the victims. I dunno, I wish people would react in the same way to a case like this no matter who was involved, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.

  3. Yes, because as we know majority of physical attacks are from women to men and women are overwhelmingly bigger in size than men, so any attack pose a real threat for harm/death, so… oh… no, actually it’s the other way around… so any theorysing on the matter is utter bullshit, because we don’t believe in that world.
    Oh, well.

  4. I actually stuffed the article in Regender to see if it really sounded more sympathetic with the genders reversed:

    “A McDonald’s cashier with a manslaughter rap was caught on camera savagely beating two men with a metal bar inside the Greenwich Village franchise on Thursday, police said.

    “Rayon McIntosh, 31, beat down the male customers after they attacked her following an argument over the veracity of a $50 bill inside the W. Third St. restaurant, police said.

    “She can be seen in the video repeatedly striking the men, who had jumped behind the counter, even after they were on the ground, as horrified customers’ screamed and pleaded for her to stop.”

    Um, this still sounds unbelievably brutal. The tiny amount of money involved and the screaming, horrified customers don’t really make for a heroic picture.

  5. Also, I can’t believe I missed this: “But some people already paint him as the aggressor, and the women who actually attacked him as the victims.”

    Broseidon, the point of the story isn’t that he hit back (which would be justified because the women attacked first), but that he hit back with an entirely disproportionate amount of force, and kept hitting them even when they were down.

  6. Actually, women can and do use physical violence on men quite often, in my experience. I wouldn’t say the majority, but it’s probably close to 50-50. It’s just that generally they don’t cause serious injuries, that and most guys who’ve been on the receiving end don’t talk about it for fear of ridicule.

  7. Molly Ren: Well, like I said before he went too far and will be paying for it. My point was that some people were ready to forget that he’d been attacked and provoked beforehand. It’s this way, right now everyone is saying the fault is mostly his, whereas if a woman had fought back like this against two male customers everyone would be saying the fault was mostly theirs. I’m not talking about the commenters on this blog, but people in general.

  8. Broseidon wrote, “Actually, women can and do use physical violence on men quite often, in my experience. I wouldn’t say the majority, but it’s probably close to 50-50. It’s just that generally they don’t cause serious injuries, that and most guys who’ve been on the receiving end don’t talk about it for fear of ridicule.”

    I feel like this whole paragraph sums up why the idea that only one gender can really commit violence is screwed up. Guys who *have* been injured are refusing to get help because a woman beat them? Yeesh.

  9. Pecunium, I totally agree. And thank you for showing that there is a way to view the situation with empathy for the cashier, without reaching the ludicrous moral of “And that’s why women better watch out when dealing with men.”

  10. most guys who’ve been on the receiving end don’t talk about it for fear of ridicule.”

    Gosh, if only there were a movement out there focused on equality that’s concerned about EVERYONE affected by violence, so that no one would be afraid to come forward…

  11. Feminist blog acknowledging arrest of women for sexually attacking men:

    http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/women-arrested-for-sex-attacks-on-men/

    Link in blog lead to CNN article.

    I hesitated about posting this though because of how much it would feed the MRA paranoia that women are out to steal their sperm. However, it’s good to know how a SINGLE incident might then become the focus for a full blown paranoia of “all teh wimminz” variety that they are so prone to.

  12. It’s this way, right now everyone is saying the fault is mostly his, whereas if a woman had fought back like this against two male customers everyone would be saying the fault was mostly theirs. I’m not talking about the commenters on this blog, but people in general.

    You keep repeating this “fought back” thing — that’s not the part people are upset by. No is saying he’s at fault for hitting back, they’re saying he’s at fault for repeatedly hitting a person lying on the ground with a piece of metal; did I miss the memo where everyone is totally cool with women attacking helpless men with weapons? That seems like a memo I would’ve noticed.

    Because in reality I’m pretty sure no one is gonna be like “ex-felon beats the crap out of two people lying on the ground with a chunk of metal while bystanders beg the attacker to stop? Oh no! …Oh wait, it was a woman doing that? Eh, sounds legit. Flirtatious, even! ^^”

  13. @Happy Anti-MRA

    But we (or at least I) like feeding the trolls. It’s so fun watching Owly explicitly agree with that stuff and then flounce off complaining about our “hatred.” The fact that Antsy and Owly brag about their exploits on other blogs just cements how pathetic they are. Dear god, the number of times we’ve corrected Antsy’s blatant stupid errors, and he goes off and brags about it? Brilliant!

  14. I know none of you care how I feel one way or the other but I feel compelled to applaud the appropriate nature of the reactions of most (not all) comments about the McD violence …

    I am both surprised and grateful that many members of this community appear to have responded to the McD incident with balance and fairness:

    “… sheer speed/violence, will overcome numbers. They didn’t expect that level of response, and weren’t ready for it. He’d been trained to respond that quickly, as well as to be ready for it all the time …”

    Correct. His response to the violence of two drunken female customers was disproportionate, but understandable (if not FULLY justifiable) given how this nation treats its prisoners.

    “I hate to say it, but the Spearhead people are right about one thing: if the genders were reversed, everyone would be cheering for the female cashier who handed out the beatdown.”

    Correct. Media bigotry and double standards, which MRAs are fighting to end.

    “Actually, women can and do use physical violence on men quite often, in my experience. I wouldn’t say the majority, but it’s probably close to 50-50. It’s just that generally they don’t cause serious injuries, that and most guys who’ve been on the receiving end don’t talk about it for fear of ridicule.”

    Female violence peppers my past, and the past of many men I know. It is extremely common, and men rarely report it because law enforcement and the media immediately make a joke out of any man who reports abuse by a woman.

  15. Female violence peppers my past, and the past of many men I know. It is extremely common, and men rarely report it because law enforcement and the media immediately make a joke out of any man who reports abuse by a woman.

    I’m sorry to hear that, Antz. No, I don’t generally care how you feel, but no one deserves that.

    Believe it or not, this is something we want to change. It really is. When feminists say patriarchy hurts men, this is what we’re talking about.

  16. For those talking about “self-defense” or “fighting back” in the McD’s assault, this might be a useful resource. Basically, the situation stopped being self-defense when he escaped danger, then became felony assault when a) he picked up a weapon and b) they hit the ground. That would have been the case regardless of who was involved.

    Also note that the women are getting charged for their crimes, too. Where is the Pussy Pass?

  17. This thread isn’t about the incident at McD — this thread is about a man with a long, but fairly concealed history of violence and and upbringing which consisted of getting his own way in everything, killing his ex-wife and seven random people because he was upset over having to share custody of his son. This thread is also about the MRA’s overwhelmingly praising him and admonishing women that men have the right to butcher them if they don’t get what they want. The issue of some other women in some other place attacking some other man is completely irrelevant, unless the argument is that because some woman somewhere slapped a guy, men everywhere are now entitled to have an open season on all women they don’t like, regardless of the reason or the circumstances.

    Broseidon: Woulda, shoulda. Are you a rational person? In other words, did you base that opinion on actual facts? If so, let’s have those facts — give me some examples of women being praised for butchering a man in response for a far lesser degree of aggression.

  18. Hell, even self-defense books by and for women make it very clear that hitting someone on the ground does not constitute self-defense, and if you do it then you should expect to get arrested if/when the police show up because that’s assault. You do not try to continue to hit or kick your attacker once ze’s down (not only is that illegal but it’s also dangerous) but you instead should GTFO and get help if possible.

  19. Broseidon: What happened was unconscionable.

    If the genders were reversed I’d say the same thing. So long as someone is actually attacking, you have the right to defend yourself. No one has the right to leave, get a weapon, come back, intiate an attack, and call it self-defense.

    If it had been a woman who did it, same story.

    The women who attacked him are also being charged, and rightly so.

    But what he did wasn’t fighting back. He was able to leave the scene. At that point he was no longer defending himself. When he came back he initiated a new attack.

    Antz: Correct. His response to the violence of two drunken female customers was disproportionate, but understandable (if not FULLY justifiable) given how this nation treats its prisoners.

    Nope. not justifiable at all. That I understand how he got to the place he got doesn’t justify it.

    Seraph: I was thinking about linking to Marc’s stuff (he’s a friend of mine. Back in the day we used to be fairly close [ before he moved to Colorado]. I taught him to shoot, did the photography for his first book. He taught me knife fighting, and how to make a hasty “knife” from a beer bottle. Good times, if somewhat atavistic).

  20. Pecunium – Good to have someone I know vouch for him. His advice seemed solid, which is why I linked to it, but you know how the internet is. Anyone can claim to be an expert at anything, and everyone has at least one person calling them a fraud.

  21. What he says about fighting; the straight dope. I can think of only a couple of people I’d be worried about coming after me, and he’s one of them (used to be I’d say that if he were coming after me I’d cut to the chase and kill myself, but I’m scrappier now, and have more in the way of old and age treachery).

    When it comes to the specifics of stories, he’s as inclined to embellish for narrative effect as anyone who makes his living telling that sort of tale. There is a (large) kernel of truth in the stories he tell, but (having been in some of them) I recall the details differently (and sometimes a bit more than a little).

    On legal matters.. well he makes a fair chunk of change as an expert witness in self-defense cases: he know whereof he speaks.

    He’s the real deal.

  22. It’s weird how he current derail is MRAs attempting to distract us from an unjustified attack on women by bringing up… another unjustified attack on women.

    Proving women are never victimized by men: you’re doing it really, really wrong.

  23. But Holly, those latter women weren’t killed! So really that’s the kindest gentlest MRM imaginable, and they all deserve blowjobs of gratitude for only celebrating the brutal beating of some women rather than full-on cold-blooded murder. Yaaay…

  24. @Eneya
    “if there was no feminism ever, they would never receive full custody on the sexist ground that men suck as parents”

    As Amused has so thoughtfully supplied, it isn’t men who flippantly regurgitate sexism it’s women…Golda Meir, “They’ll get custody more often and have better relationships with their kids when they start loving their kids more than they hate their ex-wives.”

    A feminist woman in power. Repeating a lie often doesn’t change the lie.
    —————–
    @thebionicmommy
    “A woman can’t just kill her husband or boyfriend for any reason. He has to be a threat to her.”

    Case after case of women getting off for murder when the only evidence is their testimony clearly demonstrates the error in your statement. Dead men cannot rebut an accusation. Since he’s the one whose dead, she was the threat.
    ——————
    @Eneya
    “Yes, because as we know majority of physical attacks are from women to men and women are overwhelmingly bigger in size than men, so any attack pose a real threat for harm/death, so… oh… no, actually it’s the other way around… so any theorysing on the matter is utter bullshit, because we don’t believe in that world.”

    No, every study shows women initiate aggressive behavior a majority of the time. The reason these women attacked is because they believed they were above retaliation from a man. Men do more damage, as the video clearly shows, when defending themselves from a womans attack. Which is why women are mis-percieved as being victims more often.

    This man defended himself from the violence of two women. For daring to defend himself, these same two women will now wield the violence of the State to incarcerate him.
    ——————-
    @hellkell
    “Gosh, if only there were a movement out there focused on equality that’s concerned about EVERYONE affected by violence, so that no one would be afraid to come forward…”

    There is, it’s called the MRM, Feminists always say they’re all about equality, however their actions are the opposite.
    ——————-
    @Seraph
    “Believe it or not, this is something we want to change. It really is. When feminists say patriarchy hurts men, this is what we’re talking about.”

    Women changed “it” into the society we live in today; Women as a group, made the laws. Calling it patriarchy is shifting the blame from women to men.
    ——————-
    @Bagelsan
    “Hell, even self-defense books by and for women make it very clear that hitting someone on the ground does not constitute self-defense, and if you do it then you should expect to get arrested if/when the police show up because that’s assault.”

    So if she slapped him, he should slap her back, and when they escalate to punching him, he can punch them back, when they further escalate to knocking him down, he can knock them down, and so on? Whatever happened to the almighty victim-blaming feminists are so fond of?
    ——————-
    @Pecunium
    “The women who attacked him are also being charged, and rightly so.”

    Misdemeanors for the attackers and a felony for the defender. There is no way in hell that’d be the case if the genders were reversed. I’ll give 3 to 1 odds the defender gets a harsher punishment.

  25. Misdemeanors for the attackers and a felony for the defender. There is no way in hell that’d be the case if the genders were reversed. I’ll give 3 to 1 odds the defender gets a harsher punishment.

    That’s because the crimes are not the same.

    The committed assault.

    He left. At that point they were no longer assaulting him. At that point he was not committing any crime.

    He came back. He had a weapon. He attacked them. That is a new incident. It was not a continuation of the same incident. He committed Aggravated Assault, or Assault with a Deadly Weapon, or whatever it is New York calls such a crime.

    If the attack had been ongoing and he’d grabbed a pipe, or a basket of fries from the fryer, or some other ad hoc weapon: with no break in their attack I’d say he was, at the least, being overcharged. I might even say he was within his rights to use that ad hoc weapon in self defense.

    But he didn’t do that.

    He came back to attack them.

    I’ll bet that had it been a white man who jumped the counter, and this black man had left, and come back, you’d be singing a different tune.

    But go ahead, explain to me how this guy attacking a woman and breaking her arm, and fracturing her skull, shows that the the shooter in Seal Beach wasn’t all that bad.

  26. @Pecunium

    They followed him into the back where he got the weapon. They didn’t stop following him, they went after him. Stop making excuses for womens poor behavior.

  27. Since he used force against a woman, in NWO world he is totally justified! Just like the Seal Beach shooter! Killing and maiming women is always justified by NWO.

  28. NWO: Stop making excuses for his breaking the law.

  29. Misdemeanors for the attackers and a felony for the defender. There is no way in hell that’d be the case if the genders were reversed. I’ll give 3 to 1 odds the defender gets a harsher punishment.

    Um, milkslave … hate to break it to you, but crimes have elements. If what the cashier did satisfied the elements of a felony and what the customers did satisfied the elements of a misdemeanor, that’s what the prosecutor was able to charge them with.

    Not that you understand the law. You probably think that the felony statute is written in ALL CAPS, and that’s why the guy is getting a harsher punishment.

  30. “… sheer speed/violence, will overcome numbers. They didn’t expect that level of response, and weren’t ready for it. He’d been trained to respond that quickly, as well as to be ready for it all the time …”

    Correct. His response to the violence of two drunken female customers was disproportionate, but understandable (if not FULLY justifiable) given how this nation treats its prisoners.

    Wow. Zarat and I actually agree on something. Pecunium and I agree on many things.

    So, tell me something Zarat: other than deciding, fairly arbitrarily, that a select group of men should never be subjected to the brutality of the American prison system, what are you doing for the rest of the men who are sent to prison without violent criminal backgrounds or pre-existing gang affiliations? I mean, that was your big concern when you first showed up on these threads right? Fathers who face potential prison sentences as a result of nonpayment of child support and their imminent brutalization in the American prison system?

    But our prisons are disproportionately filled with men.* And the majority of them are incarcerated on nonviolent drug offenses. Should men locked away on possession charges for marijuana be subject to brutalization? Surely, as you consider yourself and advocate for Men’s Rights and a soldier within the MRM, you recognize that a portion of the U.S. prison population suffers from untreated mental illness. Why, right here on this site you’ve held up the number of men suffering from untreated mental illness as one of the ill so feminism.

    So what are you doing about this? What is the MRM doing about this?

    *Despite the repeatedly raising the specter of the “pussy pass” the number of women incarcerated -many for violent crime- continues to grow.

  31. Bee: No… you don’t understand.

    Them slapping him is no different than him breaking their bones with a pipe.

    It’s the misandry in the system that treats him so harshly for knocking them down and bashing in someone’s head and breaking her arm.

    They hit him (with their hands) and he was able to walk away, it’s just the same as him hitting them with a piece of metal and knocking them down and beating them half to death.

    Just like that woman in Seal Beach. The law let her abuse her ex (by not giving him exclusive say in their son’s medical treatment) so he defended himself by shooting her.

  32. The McDonald’s attack was much discussed among the group of friends that I had dinner with earlier this evening. I wouldn’t really call it a debate as everyone agreed that the women were completely out of line and should be charged with the crimes they committed and that the man’s reaction went way over the line and he should be charged as well. Mostly we talked about the number of incidents like this, regardless of gender, and how brutally and quickly situations can escalate.

    Somehow, a group of men and women discussed the incident and pretty much all agreed that the women were absolutely wrong and deserved to be punished by the law but still didn’t think that a cracked skull and broken arm were justified. Uncanny.

  33. Tired typing: “Despite the repeated raising of the specter of the pussy pass…”

    I should go to bed.

  34. Oh, I get it.

    SCENE: A police precinct.

    OFFICER ONE: Hey. Someone did … A CRIME.

    POLICE SERGEANT: Was it a man?

    OFFICER ONE: No, a woman did the crime.

    POLICE SERGEANT (scratching head): Hmmm, well, might as well give her a slap on the wrist and send her home then.

    OFFICER TWO: Sure thing!

    OFFICER TWO: Someone else did a crime too!

    POLICE SERGEANT: Was it a man?

    OFFICER TWO: Yes! Yes, a man did the crime!

    POLICE SERGEANT: Lock him up! He shall never see the light of day again!

    END SCENE.

    Book of Learnin: All things that are crimes are treated exactly the same under the law, and only handled differently depending on whether the perpetrator is male or female.

  35. So if she slapped him, he should slap her back, and when they escalate to punching him, he can punch them back, when they further escalate to knocking him down, he can knock them down, and so on? Whatever happened to the almighty victim-blaming feminists are so fond of?

    You can use the force needed to get away and keep yourself from being harmed. He did that; he walked away. He was no longer being harmed.

    You can’t come back later and start whaling on the original attackers with a weapon. He did that too; he started beating two people lying on the ground with a hunk of metal. He was now harming rather than trying to avoid harm. Get it? No? …Bueller?

    Victim-blaming is when a woman gets assaulted or raped and everyone says “oh yeah, well what were you wearing? How were you acting? Were you drinking?” Victim-blaming is not when a woman gets groped and then comes back later and runs her assailant over with a truck and everyone says “what the fuck lady? Not cool!”

  36. specter of the pussy pass

    How is that not the title of a Nancy Drew novel? :D

  37. For daring to defend himself, these same two women will now wield the violence of the State to incarcerate him.

    The incident was recorded. No one is wielding the violence of the state. The state is intervening as a reaction to the violence. Do you think murder victims “…wield the violence of the State…” when a suspect is arrested? Several crimes were committed and reported to law enforcement, in all likelihood, by bystanders.

    When the police came to the scene should they have watched the recordings, told everyone to behave better, and left?

  38. How is that not the title of a Nancy Drew novel?

    I’m not sure. But now I kind of want to write it.

  39. The comments found on most news articles about the McD’s incident are disturbing. apparently, this guy is turning into some kind of folk hero, with people wanting to pay his bail, give him a job or help with his legal bills. His behavior is also completely excused and explained. He was right to keep beating them, because he told them to stay down and they didn’t. This means that they had a knife or a gun and were trying to get up to keep atttacking him. Most of what I saw was on Huffington Post and it still kinda makes me a little sick.

    I understand that there’s a little bit of sheudenfreude going on here, because almost everyone has wanted to beat the living piss out of an annoying customer, at some point in their lives but it’s gotten ridiculous. Bear in mind that the guy served 11 years for killing a classmate and accidentally shooting an 8 year old bystander. They had an argument, so he pulled a gun and shot the guy. I don’t think the prison system did this to him. I think he’s a violent guy with little self control.

    The only issue I have with the charges leveled is that the woman who slapped him should be charged with simple assault. Otherwise, both of the violent ones need to serve their time and deal with their anger issues. Not sure about the other woman who didn’t hit anyone, but she sure as hell should have stayed on the right side of the counter.

  40. Bear in mind that the guy served 11 years for killing a classmate and accidentally shooting an 8 year old bystander.

    In all fairness, that 8-year-old was probably totally standing upright at the time. Asking for it.

  41. @Bagelsan: The child also had mom and dad with him so, he was with his posse and was a serious threat. They were all walking and one of them could have had a gun or a knife on them, so shooting him was totally justified.

  42. Broseidon: Woulda, shoulda. Are you a rational person? In other words, did you base that opinion on actual facts? If so, let’s have those facts — give me some examples of women being praised for butchering a man in response for a far lesser degree of aggression.

    Calm your tits, I didn’t come here to pick a fight. I could give the example of that guy who got his wiener cut off by his wife and the whole thing was made into a joke, like, 2 months ago. But even without that, you’d be naive to think that this would be treated the same way with the genders reversed. Most people would be sympathetic towards the woman, that’s just how people think.

    Actually, maybe that’s not true. I’ve started seeing more sympathy for the guy as well, and many people gave a pretty fair assessment of the whole situation so I stand corrected.

    Anyways, Pecunium already said everything better than I could, so I’m gonna stop derailing.

  43. Owly, what do you mean “a lie”? Have you NEVER opened a history book or checked old court grams about gaining custody especially in the 20th century? The sheer ammount of sexism toward men is overwhelming, most of it reeks from the stereotypes that women are nutruting and the main caregiver and that men are simply unable to form such a bond with a child.

    The first attempts of men to gain ful custody over their kids have been… unsuccessful to say the least especially fi they didn’t have new wives.
    You can’t bash feminism for the fact that a sexist society thinks that men suck at parenting, you can criticise the society. Do you really not get it? A society which believes that women are primary mothers automatically excludes men from the family and diminishes a man’s abilities to be a parent. Sheesh, at least you some logic and know you own fucking history… seriously, I am so irritated when people don’t know their own history but love to argue about stuff they have only tangential knowledge about.

    You want to be able to gain full custody if needed? How about fight the society and believes that gender defines a person and that gender means a set of unchangable traits which are wired for the chromosomes. The same idea that argues that men are more logical is the exactly same argument that men are less emotional, thus being unable to care for a child.
    Damn dude, go check your Freude and the rest of the gang, because I am tired of you. You are simoultaniously whining that feminists are trying to break the stereotypes, repeating like a broken record how women are prone to do this and do that, and men are genetically this or that but when it actually hurts you, somehow feminism is in fault because…. they are arguing that people are not just their gender and men could be fathers, could have emotions and could care for someone else besides themselves?

    How do you live with that in your head? It is completely illogical.

  44. Violence is the way of the World. Feminism needs a violent government to enforce it, and for changes to be made, violence will need to be committed or at least threatened. I think a lot of the MRAs quoted on this blog are moronic assholes, but you feminists are no better, and in some ways, worse. Just because you get the government to do the beat downs for you, doesn’t make you innocent, just like the wife who hired a hitman to kill her husband isn’t innocent either.

  45. @Eneya
    “You want to be able to gain full custody if needed? How about fight the society and believes that gender defines a person and that gender means a set of unchangable traits which are wired for the chromosomes. The same idea that argues that men are more logical is the exactly same argument that men are less emotional, thus being unable to care for a child.
    Damn dude, go check your Freude and the rest of the gang, because I am tired of you. You are simoultaniously whining that feminists are trying to break the stereotypes, repeating like a broken record how women are prone to do this and do that, and men are genetically this or that but when it actually hurts you, somehow feminism is in fault because…. they are arguing that people are not just their gender and men could be fathers, could have emotions and could care for someone else besides themselves?”

    Men and women are different on a biological level. Men being more logical would approach child rearing in a logical manner and men are quite a fun bunch. Women being more emotional would approach child rearing in an emotional manner. Both are neccesary for a childs development. It is women who claim a womans way of child rearing is singularly neccesary and a mans way is irrelevant. Why not celebrate diversty like you always promote?

    Gender differences never hurt. What hurts is unequal treatment before the law. Feminism is the cause of this unequal treatment. Until you celebrate the differences of men as feverently as you celebrate everything woman, you’re preaching hatred. That fact that men and women are genetically different doesn’t hurt anyone. The hurt comes from feminisms misguided belief that there aren’t any genetic differences.

  46. @Moewicus

    Yes, AntZ has two faces, the alleged victim of female/feminist/whatever brutality looking to prevent any more victims of this brutality, selflessly attempting to correct those poor misguided people on Manboobz. But check him out on AVFM; the MRA Soldier, the man quick to pounce on any remotely dissenting view from the standard, manic MRA narrative.

    So be aware that you are giving AntZ and NWO just what they want; a bit of attention.

    They want to be thought of as important with their copy & pasted arguments and their whacky theories – but they are just keyboard warriors with basically nothing of any importance to say.

    They’re cowards; scared of women, scared of femininity and scared of their own failures as human beings. So they seek solace in the MRM – where anyone is welcome as long as they are paranoid, reactionary and not too critical a thinker.

  47. Happy Anti-MRA – Do be aware that coming into a blog and saying “you’re doing everything wrong and you should stop having fun and listen to me” is kind of troll behavior, even when you agree ideologically. So I’m not sure if I should be responding to you.

    But: 1. The nature of this blog would attract trolls even if the comments ignored them, so it might actually turn denser with MRA types if the comments weren’t hostile for their sort.

    2. When the MRAs go to other blogs to crow about their good work here, people who click back will be able to see them getting their asses handed to them.

    3. Often (well, sometimes) the initial comment an MRA troll makes will be semi-reasonable on first glance, and it takes some questioning and some pushing to get them to admit that they think women are semihuman and cause hurricanes.

    4. Hey, we have our fun. To stop having fun with the MRAs would be too much like letting them get to us.

  48. Owly, are you stupid or simply don’t pay any attention to what people are saying to you?
    WHEN has feminis EVER argued that women are better parents by default? The idea is absurd and as one who actually knows something about feminism, I can tell you, feminism does not support gender maximalism. Oh, yes, I can definitely quote at least a bucn of people, both feminists or not, who argue stuff about gender being weired to parenting but it has been debunked quite a long ago and frankly I have as much patience for such people, as for the gender relativism advocates, or simply put – none.

    Logical and emotional are not polar ideas that are somehow in the two ends of the spectre. We view and treat such extreme cases as illness and I don’t know about you but I don’t know anyone who is only emotional or only logical. People are tad more complicated.
    Our soceity trats men who show emotion horribly and mocks women who try to work in more “logical” fields, though as some posts ago, there are quite a lot of women who made and still make a living out of it, even are huge scientists and have done quite a lot of astonishing things, yet you still speak about “emotional” and “logical” parenting.

    Why? What good would it come to if you discourage people to be complicated beings who can be more than absolutims at a time?
    Hell, up until a few years ago, most of my closest peers were mainly mathematicans and engineers, both men and women and tough it is still just my experience, none of them had anou troubles exibitin both emotional and logical traits.

    Parenting is not only emotions and logic, so that is utter bullshit to even begin with to argue.
    Men are not emotionless robots and women are not emotional shrews… PEOPLE are different. And if you don’t get it it simply because obviously you live in a world with only two colours but believe me you will never be able to put everyone in one or the other tag.
    Because, hey, I am pretty awesome with my logic stuff but also I am capable of having normal and fullfilling relationships with other people, being able to form close relations with them without my head exploding. Stop using gender relativism as your go-to solution for every issue and start looking about the actual people.

    Some nutjob killed his wife, because he didn’t like the fact he didn’t get full custody, though he had bigger part of the custody from the first place. How about actually showing some concern for the kid who has NO parents now and think about that for a change, than simply raging how ALWAYS someone else is at fault for everything?

    It is pretty scary how MRA’s are coming and though I believe that there are people who genuinly care about men and want to discuss different issues that affect them… commenting how murderers are somehow the victim in such a case just makes me want to NEVER, EVER speak with an American man.

  49. @Holly Pervocracy

    You know what; you’re right. I think that the usual MRA mindset is so vile that it is undeserving of any sort of enjoyment; therefore it bothered me to see these little Trolls being given the attention that they crave. But some things are more important.

    Has anyone on this site ever thought about “Google-bombing” articles about prominent MRAs (I realise that’s an oxymoron)? In most cases, links to their own articles would damn them but some commentary might be required.

  50. “So be aware that you are giving AntZ and NWO just what they want; a bit of attention.”

    Personally, I don’t really care what they want. They believe ridiculous, horrible things and make their beliefs known, and it amuses me to draw them out so they’ll say even more ridiculous things and I can laugh at them.

  51. Broseidon: Your comment about my tits: Is this an example of how men make reasoned and polite arguments and women make insulting references to their anatomy? Ah-huh. It’s a perfect illustration of the inanity of the rest of your comment, the ludicrous claim that feminists make everyone gang up on the poor, misunderstood Nice Guy who only blew away his bitch of an ex-wife for “oppressing” him by having custody of their son a whopping three days per week, plus seven more people who totally deserved it because they were in a hair salon; while the overwhelming condemnation of the woman who cut off her husband’s penis in feminist media, including this site, just “proves” your claim that feminists all celebrate that stuff. Fuck off, dickwad. Given how undeveloped your brain is, your preoccupation with the level of calm my tits are experiencing is a tad premature.

  52. Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant

    Calm your tits, Amused.

  53. MRAL: As for you, I suggest you close the browser and scan your room for these rectangular objects with letters on three sides, that open to reveal many sheets of paper within, covered with text. Those objects are called “books”. I can bet you, you are required to read a few of these for every one of your four or five courses in order to at least get a C. Given that your GPA is already at the level of the sewer, and your matriculation at your school is hanging by a thread, you can’t afford wasting any more time here hurling around your flaccid insults. What are you going to do when you get the pink slip? Blame feminists?

  54. What have Amused’s tits have to do with this conversation anyway? Is she typing her commments with them? Even then, I can’t see the connectiob with the topic.

    Or we moved to randomly commenting on people body parts for the lols and when have nothing more relevant to say?
    Hm… that would explain why so regulalry body parts are used for slander mainly by MRA people.

  55. Doesn’t MARL have keyboard mashing to do? Or typing some slurs with spaces to prove how brave he is?

  56. Calm your sac MRAL

  57. They are just mad because someone’s tits could type more coherently than they can.

  58. What are you going to do when you get the pink slip? Blame feminists?

    Oh, probably. Either that or those heightist professors.

  59. *grabs bra straps and pulls them back*

    Whoa, Nelly! Easy girls, easy!

    *tits stamp and snort wildly, then slowly calm*

    *hands them some alfalfa to nibble*

    Okay guys, I got them under control! Will we be getting substantive rebuttals from the MRA crowd now, or are they still scared of stampeding bosoms?

  60. Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant

    My GPA is 3.7, jackass.

  61. I am an awe by the fact that men are actually scared by female bodies and body parts, treating them and commenting them as something alien. Well it is ibvous who we can thank for this but still… amasing. Especially the fact that some people keep that well in their adult lives which then moves more to “pathetic” or “sad”.

    I remember when in high school commenting on parts attracted much laughter and snickering (mainly by boys, but there were ebough girls who laughed as well) but it mainly died out areoung the end of high school, at least for girls. I think I have mentioned that I have been in clasess for biology and chemistry and still some guys were acting a bit like the awesome description from Baglesan is something that they actually almost expect to happen.

    Huh.

  62. Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant

    Calm your tits, Eneya.

  63. *coos to tits*

    It’s alright ladies, shh shh, ‘s okay. MRAL looks like a rabid scruffy little weasel but there’s no way he’d get close enough to a female body to do anything. Atta girl.

    *tits canter onward*

  64. MRAL, darling, if you’re gonna get into a pissing contest you at least have to use a standardized measurement of some kind! My GPAs through the years have been anywhere from 3.0 to 4.0, at different times and at different institutions (not to mention the variability between individual classes of varying difficulty); how do those compare to your 3.7? Unanswerable. What do those numbers tell us about our relevant smarts*? Even more unanswerable. As a math major you should understand this. :p

    *We’ll pretend that there is some kind of coherent, quantifiable, and non-biased definition of “smarts” that encompasses all the multiple intelligences. You’re welcome.

  65. MRAL: Telling me your GPA is 3.7 won’t change reality. I don’t personally care if you get kicked out of school, but I was in the academia long enough to know there are no miracles. If you spend the morning trolling, that means you are cutting class (even if you are physically present). If you spend many hours a day flinging feces on the Internet, you are not getting your work done; and if you are getting your work done, you are not passing your classes. Just sayin’.

  66. I’m gonna use “calm your sac” from now on. :D

  67. Molly, “perhaps “Lube your hand”, since it’s mostly wankery when this sort of thing comes out.

    No substance, just foot-stamping because they aren’t getting the sort of attention they want.

  68. Well, my point about commenting on people’s body parts used by MRA’s when they have ntohing to say have been proven.

    I wonder… what exactly do you mean by calm? I am having quite weird ideas about exactly the kind of behaviour describe by Baglesan and it makes me wonder… have you NEVER seen boobs so you think they are some kind of separate organism which could requite calming?

    Poor, pooor boy. Happy, happy women and breasts somewhere outhere :)

  69. Eneya: I think it’s an attempt to be clever, based on the phrase, ‘cool your jets” which he either got from some association with the Air Force, or a science fiction pieces.

  70. Broseidon: Your comment about my tits: Is this an example of how men make reasoned and polite arguments and women make insulting references to their anatomy? Ah-huh. It’s a perfect illustration of the inanity of the rest of your comment, the ludicrous claim that feminists make everyone gang up on the poor, misunderstood Nice Guy who only blew away his bitch of an ex-wife for “oppressing” him by having custody of their son a whopping three days per week, plus seven more people who totally deserved it because they were in a hair salon; while the overwhelming condemnation of the woman who cut off her husband’s penis in feminist media, including this site, just “proves” your claim that feminists all celebrate that stuff. Fuck off, dickwad. Given how undeveloped your brain is, your preoccupation with the level of calm my tits are experiencing is a tad premature.

    OOOK, someone definitely has some issues. Half that shit I never even talked about, the rest is just angry ad hominem rant. You should look into some kind of anger management.

    FYI, “calm yo tits” is a popular saying, it’s basically just the equivalent of “calm down”, which you should be doing.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Calm%20your%20tits

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,027 other followers

%d bloggers like this: